The conference lasted eight days, and the sittings were so organized that the delegates of the various countries might in between time meet to discuss and conclude trade measures. Thus, the English delegation boasted of having negotiated with the Chinese a bilateral accord appraised at some ten million pounds sterling. Businessmen thus advanced concrete proof of a proposition which had remained theoretical in the mouths of economists, i.e., that the potential exists for building up the volume of trade between the two blocs. C.Q.F.D.

These were small beginnings, obviously. But there could be no expectation of very great ones, when the Conference had been boycotted by the country which so powerfully dominates the trade of the whole non-Soviet world.

What was important was to take the first steps, and to offer proof that all capital and all markets are not controlled by the United States. It was not a question of reproaching them for their power, but solely a question of understanding what the Indies and Latin America for example had understood, and what Canada still is late in doing: that the ubiquity of the dollar is not without peril for national sovereignties. Of course, I would like still less ubiquity for the rouble. It would be necessary on the contrary to destroy the monopoly of the currencies within each camp, to encourage diversification and interpenetration.1

Moreover, the United States themselves must sooner or later come to this point, because they cannot forever endure the competition of Japan and of Germany, if these latter do not recover their normal markets in China and in Eastern Europe.

They are now satisfied because it was unanimously resolved in plenary session “to propose to the General Assembly of the United Nations that it soon convene an intergovernmental conference on international trade, with the participation of representatives from the business milieux, and from labor and social organizations.”

Undoubtedly because the United Nations does not have the means of settling such proposals very quickly, it was also decided to appoint a committee whose task would be to prepare a second conference “based on the same principle of economic cooperation among peoples, notwithstanding their economic and social systems”.

It will be interesting to see what attitude the Canadian government and our businessmen will take with respect to these two propositions. I am convinced that personal contact with the Soviets and especially a stay in the U.S.S.R. would have been and always would be an invaluable experience for our merchants. And from a business point of view, one should not overemphasize the fact that Canadian exports are vital rather than complementary to the Soviets; because multilateralism by itself would open up new markets to us.

Finally, the reproach remains that Russia sought by the Conference to augment its imports of strategic materials. But I do not see that the minerals or oil offered to France are less “strategic” than the ships demanded in exchange. On this account the English also should refuse their cottons to China who may turn them into military uniforms. And the problem would remain to know whether Communism is not better served by the unemployment of English workshops and of French construction sites than by the sale of textiles and ships to the U.S.S.R.

Unless obviously war is nonetheless inevitable. In which case I am wasting my time in writing, and you in reading me. But is this not precisely the knot in the fetter? When too many Statesmen and businessmen have believed that war is inevitable, they will find it logical to do nothing to avoid it.

At the current juncture, it is alas! essential that justice arm itself against the risk of violence. But is it necessary to go as far as condemning all those who still prefer to work for peace rather than for victory?

DEMAIN, conclusion: Est-ce pour ça qu’on a fait trois révolutions?

TOMORROW, conclusion: They had three revolutions for this?

______

Translator’s Notes

1 It seems to me this would encourage homogenization and convergence. The shadows of the “Revolution’s” Bankers must have been on the walls at Moscow in 1952.

Australian author, Jeremy Lee, a speaker at the Australian League of Rights (ALOR), saw the Moscow Summit as an element of Communist forward strategy:

The “international order” concept was first developed at a special Moscow Economic Conference, April 3—11, 1952, attended by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who led a Communist delegation from Canada. Lenin himself had foreshadowed this development in these words:

“To the tasks of des­truction are added new, in­credibly difficult tasks, viz. organisation tasks … the or­ganisation of accounting, of the control of large enter­prises, the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism, into a single huge machine, into an economic organisation that will work in such a way as to enable hun­dreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan. …”

— (N. Lenin, Selected Works, vol. 7 pp. 285-287, cited in “Part III” of “The New World Order” and the Destruction of Australian Industry By Jeremy Lee, 1991)

– 30 –

PERMISSION:Nota bene: This French transcript and the exclusive English translation are by Kathleen Moore for the legal research purposes of Habeas Corpus Canada, The Official Legal Challenge to North American Union. Document date: 19 September 2016, based on a rough draft on 17 September 2016. Permission is given to use this document, with credit to its origin. If you find this document useful or interesting, please support The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union: PayPal: habeas.corpus.canada@live.com

Robert Rumilly:
Two important authors on the communist infiltration of Canada are Alan Stang and Robert Rumilly. Please read my exclusive English translation of two chapters from Rumilly's 1956 book The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada (L'Infiltration gauchiste au Canada français).

ANTICOMMUNIST ARCHIVE & STORIES:

EXCLUSIVE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois, calling for a Communist State of Quebec
Segments translated so far:

UPDATE 15 August 2016: 100% complete! First English translation of 1972 PQ manifesto for a Communist State of Quebec. This is what we were really "voting" for in 1980 and 1995. There is more text in the PDF download than is posted online in html: https://www.sendspace.com/file/pgg7mg

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec